The Respondent is Globemedia, an apparently unincorporated entity. The Respondent
proceeds pro se.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The domain name at issue is <afm.com>. The domain name is registered
with TierraNet, Inc.

3. Procedural History

AFMA filed its Complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization
("WIPO") Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center")
by email on April 18, 2001. The Center received a hard copy version of the Complaint
on April 25, 2001. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the
"Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution (the "Rules"), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules"). The Panel
agrees that the Complaint satisfies the requirements, except with respect to
the naming of multiple Respondents (an issue discussed in Section 5 below);
with respect to that issue, the Panel requests that the Center consider, in
connection with its administration of future cases, whether it is appropriate
to require Complainants to amend any Complaint that names more than one Respondent.
The Center formally commenced this administrative proceeding on April 25,
2001.

The Center initially designated May 14, 2001, as the response date. At
the request of the Respondent, the Center extended that deadline to May 25,
2001. The Respondent timely filed its Response on May 25, 2001.

On July 4, 2001, after clearing for potential conflicts, the Center appointed
Dana Haviland and Michael Froomkin as Panelists and David H. Bernstein
as the Presiding Panelist in this matter[1].
Pursuant to Rule 10(c), and to (i) provide the parties an opportunity to submit
their preferences for the Presiding Panelist, and (ii) allow the Panel sufficient
time to review the voluminous case file, discuss the complexities of this case,
and confer to reach consensus, the Panel extended the date for expected decision.

4. Motion to Recuse

On May 9, 2001, the Respondent asked the Center to recuse itself from the proceedings.
The Respondent alleged that the Center faced a conflict of interest, or the
appearance of a conflict of interest, because AFMA is a member of WIPO and has
been an active participant in WIPO discussions about intellectual property.
After soliciting a response from AFMA, the Center, on May 16, 2001, declined
to recuse itself:

"After careful study of the arguments contained in the submission on the
issue of recusal, the . . . Center . . . has determined that it will continue
to act as the administering authority of this matter. The Centerís role is administrative
in nature as an ICANN approved provider under the UDRP".

On May 17, 2001, the Respondent reiterated its request that the Center
recuse itself and appoint another arbitration body in its stead. The Respondentís
motion to recuse rests on five allegations of conflict of interest. First, the
Respondent asserts that AFMA is the only U.S.-accredited non-governmental organization
("NGO") member of WIPO (and one of seven NGO members of WIPO worldwide).
Second, AFMA is a member of the International Intellectual Property Alliance
and has submitted comments to WIPO on the Internet domain name process. Third,
at least one individual has served as an arbitrator for both WIPO and AFMA-sponsored
dispute resolutions. Fourth, board and other members of AFMA have taken part
in WIPO conferences for several years. And fifth, the Respondent asserts that
searches with popular search engines turn up several hundred web pages that
connect AFMA in some way with WIPO. The Respondent alleges that these ties,
both individually and together, amount to a conflict of interest, or at least
a perception of such a conflict, that calls into question the Centerís ability
to appoint impartial panelists.

The Complainant opposes the Respondentís motion. The Complainant argues that
(1) the Respondent cited no authority for his request; (2) the Rules and
Supplemental Rules limit the decision-making authority of an administrative
dispute resolution provider ("Provider"); (3) Rule 7 charges the Panelists
to disclose any justifiable doubt of their impartiality or independence; (4)
Supplemental Rule 8 requires the Panelists to submit declarations of their independence;
and (5) Supplemental Rule 6(b) states that the Center may provide administrative
assistance only.

Through the Policy, ICANN has charged the Provider with administering the UDRP
dispute resolution process. The Providerís responsibilities include managing
the case, transmitting the complaint to the respondent, appointing a panel to
hear and decide the case, and handling the flow of paperwork between the complainant,
respondent and panel. The Policy expressly allows the complainant to select
the Provider. Policy ∂ 4(d). AFMA has selected the Center as the Provider
for this dispute.

The Policy does not give panels the authority to order recusal of a provider.
The Panel thus dismisses Respondentís motion to recuse the Center. To the extent
the motion is treated as one for recusal of the Panel itself, the Panel rejects
that motion. Each of the panelists has certified that she or he is impartial
and independent in this matter, and Respondent has not cited any other basis
for seeking recusal of any panelist. See Rule 7 ("[a] Panelist shall
be impartial and independent," and should be replaced if "circumstances
arise that could give rise to justifiable doubt as to the impartiality or independence
of the Panelist"); cf. Britannia Bldg. Socíy v. Britannia Fraud Prevention,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0505 (July 6, 2001), (discussing
general principles governing recusal of a panelist)[2].

5. Jurisdictional Issues

Before turning to the merits, the Panel must address two jurisdictional issues.
First, although the Respondent did not object, the Panel notes that Complainant
has improperly named three separate parties as Respondents: Globemedia, the
official registrant of the domain name; Andy Hasse, its administrative contact;
and <afm.com>, the entity that is listed as the registrant on WHOIS (though,
as noted above, the Registrar identifies the "registrant of record"
as Globemedia). See Email from TierraNet Support to the Center (April
19, 2001), (verifying Globemedia as the registrant of record).

Neither the Policy nor the Rules provide for the naming of multiple Respondents.
Rather, the Rules are quite explicit that the Respondent in a UDRP proceeding
is the registrant. Rule 1 ("Respondent means the holder of a domain-name
registration against which a complaint is initiated."). There is no provision
for naming as additional respondents any third parties, such as administrative
contacts or officers of the registrant. Plaza Operating Partners, Ltd. v.
Pop Data Techs., Inc., and Joseph Pillus, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0166 (June 1, 2000), (a panel has jurisdiction only over
parties that have agreed to be subject to its proceedings, such as registrants
of gTLDs who have so agreed through their registration agreements).

Here, only Globemedia, the domain name registrant, is a proper Respondent.
Accordingly, the Panel dismisses Andy Hasse and <afm.com> as Respondents.
This ruling, though, is of no moment as the only remedies available in a UDRP
proceeding are transfer or cancellation of the domain name registration, and
both of those remedies are available only against the registrant. Policy ∂ 4(i);
Rule 3(xiv) (specifying that the complainant must agree "that its claims
and remedies concerning the registration of the domain name . . . shall be solely
against the domain name holder").

The second jurisdictional issue in this case arises from Respondentís motion
to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that it registered the domain name in
dispute before the Policy was in place. The Respondent thus argues that the
Policy does not cover its conduct. This argument is without merit.

When Globemedia registered <afm.com> in 1996, the registration agreement
with the domain nameís registrar, then NSI, specified that the NSI domain dispute
policy would apply. In addition, NSI reserved the right to revise the terms
of the agreement. See, e.g., Ellenbogen v. Pearson, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0001 (February 7, 2000), (quoting 1998, NSI registration
agreement reserving right to modify dispute resolution agreement and applying
UDRP to domain name registered prior to the adoption of the Policy). As revised,
Respondentís registration agreement now expressly incorporates the Policy. Moreover,
by maintaining its registration, the Respondent has agreed to submit to the
Policy for the resolution of domain name disputes. TierraNet, Inc., the registrar,
has expressly verified to the Center and the Panel that the Policy applies to
this domain name. See Email from TierraNet Support to the Center (April
19, 2001). Accordingly, Respondentís motion to dismiss is denied.

6. Factual Background

Complainant, AFMA, is a trade association representing motion picture and television
producers and distributors, and the financial institutions that fund them. AFMA
conducts an annual film market called the American Film Market ("AFM").
AFMA has registered AFM with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")
for "arranging and conducting an annual trade show for the motion picture
industry (Reg. No. 1,309,303, issued December 11, 1984, for AFM word mark,
and Reg. No. 1,748,789, issued January 16, 1993, for AFM design mark).

Respondent, Globemedia, registered the <afm.com> domain name on August
6, 1996. The site currently provides hyperlinks to online classified listings
and auction sites, and promotes itself as "The American Flea Market."
Globemediaís principal is Andy Hasse, who also controls Hasse, Inc., an
Internet consulting business.

7. Partiesí Contentions

Set out below is a summary of the partiesí principal contentions:

A. Complainant

AFMA alleges that the domain name, <afm.com>, is identical or confusingly
similar to its AFM mark. The addition of ".com," the Complaint argues,
does not represent a material difference from AFM standing alone, nor does it
deflect viewersí perceptions of the mark.

The Complaint offers four reasons why the Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name. First, the Respondent did not use or prepare to
use the <afm.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services prior to receiving the Complaint. The Complainant offers
evidence that the <afm.com> website displayed random, unintelligible text
in November 2000, and a "coming soon" notice in January 2001. Complaint
also points to similarities in the design of the <afm.com> website at
the time the Complaint was filed and the design of other websites registered
by the Respondent. Second, the Respondent is not known by the name <afm.com>.
Third, the Respondent has not been making a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use of the <afm.com> domain name. And fourth, the large number of domain
names registered by the Respondent, Andy Hasse, and Hasse, Inc., is
evidence that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and used the domain
name in bad faith because its registration was done to prevent the Complainant
from using the mark in a corresponding domain name, and that the Respondent
has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. To establish a pattern, the Complainant
alleges three factors: first, in two previous WIPO disputes involving the <gallimard.com>,
<gallimard.org>, and <gallimard.net> domain names, Panels found
a pattern of bad faith conduct on the part of Globemedia and Andy Hasse. Editions
Gallimard v. Globemedia, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0929 (October 18, 2000); Editions Gallimard v. Hasse,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0930 (October 18,
2000). Second, the Respondent registered names of political candidates running
for mayor of San Francisco as domain names in order to prevent the candidates
from registering their names. Third, the Complainant submits evidence of forty-seven
domain names registered to Globemedia, Andy Hasse, Hasse, Inc., or an affiliated
party, and alleges that twenty-one of these domain names are confusingly similar
or identical to trademarks belonging to others, and many of these domain names
are not in use.

In addition to alleging a pattern of conduct, the Complainant claims that AFMAís
prior registration of the AFM mark with the USPTO constitutes constructive notice
to the Respondent and therefore establishes bad faith registration and that
the Respondentís failure to use the infringing name establishes bad faith use.

The Complainant also points to four additional factors as evidence of bad faith:
(1) the random text on the <afm.com> site was removed only after
the Complainant contacted the Respondent about the <afm.com> domain name;
(2) the Respondent has failed to use many of the domains it has registered,
which constitutes abusive domain name speculation; (3) the Respondent has
attempted to make its domain name registrations misleading or confusing by registering
domain names using a variety of names or addresses; and (4) the Respondent did
not return three of the Complainantís telephone calls made in the fall and winter of
2000-2001, nor did the Respondent provide its attorneyís contact information
to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

The Respondent disputes Complainantís allegations on all three factors. First,
Respondent asserts that <afm.com> is not identical or confusingly similar
to the Complainantís AFM mark. The Respondent alleges that the addition of the
".com" suffix to "afm" renders the <afm.com> domain
name distinct from the AFM mark. In addition, the Respondent asserts that at
least 200 businesses in the United States incorporate the letters "AFM"
in their business name. The Respondent also alleges that the domain name <afm.com>
is not confusingly similar to the AFM mark because of the absence of the likelihood
of confusion required to establish trademark infringement.

The Respondent claims that it has legitimate rights in, and has made legitimate
use of, the <afm.com> domain name. The Respondent registered <afm.com>
in 1996, and asserts that the domain has been in regular use since then,
first as links to web space or mailing lists, then as a portal environment with
a search engine, and eventually in its present form as a gateway to classified
and auction websites. According to the Respondent, the site has been taken down
several times for improvements. The Respondent has submitted letters from five
individuals written in April and May 2001, who claim that they worked on, saw
prototypes of, or were involved in some way with, the <afm.com> website
since 1996.

The Respondent also claims that <afm.com>, The American Flea Market,
is a known enterprise with business cards, letterhead and even custom-designed
mouse pads.

The Respondent offers evidence to rebut Complainantís claim of bad faith. The
Respondent contends that it has not engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct.
The Respondent claims that the <gallimard.com>, <gallimard.net>,
and <gallimard.org> names were registered to Bertrand Gallimard, and neither
Andy Hasse nor anyone at Globemedia or Hasse, Inc., responded to the claims
in the gallimard WIPO cases. The Respondent also refutes the charge that Andy
Hasse or Hasse, Inc., engaged in cybersquatting with respect to the San Francisco
mayoral election. In particular, the Respondent submits evidence that neither
Andy Hasse nor Hasse, Inc., registered <clintreilly.com>, <clintonreilly.com>,
<damayor.com>, or <williebrownjr.com>.

Addressing the forty-seven domain names registered to Andy Hasse or a company
in his control, the Respondent argues that Andy Hasse, Hasse, Inc., and Globemedia,
as Internet consultants, have registered many domain names for clients. The
Respondent submits two letters from clients explaining that Andy Hasse
registered domain names on their behalf. Letter from Ed Koch (May 10, 2001),
(stating that Andy Hasse registered <edkoch.org> and <edkoch.com>
for him); Letter from Michael Disend, Director, Power Hypnosis (May 7, 2001),
(listing six domain names registered for the writer by Andy Hasse).

The Respondent asks the Panel to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The Respondent
claims that AFMA has proceeded in bad faith because it began preparing its Complaint
shortly after sending a its first cease and desist letter to Andy Hasse, because
the Complainant had knowledge of the Respondentís rights and legitimate use
of the <afm.com> domain name, and because the Complainant has submitted
a large Complaint[3].

8. Discussion and Findings

In order to prove its case under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy the Complainant
must establish:

(i) That the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

(ii) That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of
the domain name; and

(iii) That the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The burden of proof in UDRP actions rests firmly on Complainant. That is true
for the second factor as well, and thus it is the Complainantís burden to prove
that the Respondent lacks any legitimate interest in the domain name. Once the
Complainant makes out a prima facie case of lack of legitimate rights
to or interest in a domain name, though, the burden of production shifts to
the Respondent, who must come forward with evidence of "use, or demonstrable
preparations to use, the domain name," Policy ∂ 4(c)(i). Document Technologies, Inc.,
v. International Elec. Communications, Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0270 (June 6, 2000). The burden of proof, of course,
remains on the Complainant.

Here, the Complainant has shown that the Respondent registered the domain name
in 1996 but, as of November 2000, only gibberish was posted on the website.
Even in January 2001, the site contained only a generic "coming soon"
notice. Only after the Complainant contacted the Respondent did the Respondent
post the current site, which now contains the phrase "The American Flea
Market," along with links to auction sites such as eBay and Sothebyís.
The Complaint has thus made an initial showing that, at the time this dispute
first arose, the Respondent was not offering any bona fide goods or services
at the <afm.com> site.

To overcome this prima facie showing, Respondent must come forward with
evidence of some legitimate use Ė whether that be a legitimate commercial use,
a legitimate noncommercial use, or use as a legitimate, non-infringing email
address. See Kidman v. Zuccarini, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1415 (January 23, 2001). Here, Respondent alleges
that (1) Mr. Hasse owns a pending trademark registration in the mark <afm.com>,
which proves its rights in this domain name, and (2) before it had notice of
the dispute, it used and made preparations to use the <afm.com> domain
name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

Mr. Hasseís trademark application was filed with the USPTO on April 19, 2001.
The application claims a date of first use of August 25, 1996. Normally, a trademark
application claiming use in commerce as of a certain date would be entitled
to some deference by a panel. However, in this case, the trademark application
was not filed until several months after the Complainant first contacted the
Respondent about <afm.com>, and the application has not yet been approved
by the PTO. Thus Mr. Hasseís specimen of use has not yet been accepted, nor
has any party had an opportunity to test the asserted date of first use through
an opposition proceeding.

Moreover, Respondent has failed to provide the Panel with any evidence that
the <afm.com> domain name was, in fact, used in commerce prior to the
filing of the Complaint. The submission of blank letterhead with the <afm.com>,
The American Flea Market" name is not alone evidence of use in commerce.
The Respondent has not submitted any evidence that this letterhead was used
between 1996 and the present. For all these reasons, the Panel considers
that, in this case, the recently-filed application alone, without corroborating
evidence of prior use in commerce, is insufficient to prove that Respondent
used the <afm.com> name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods
or services prior to the commencement of this dispute.

As corroborating evidence that it used and made preparations to use <afm.com>
prior to the initiation of this dispute, the Respondent submits five letters
from programmers and Internet consultants, all written in April or May of 2001,
attesting to their work on or knowledge of <afm.com>, The American Flea
Market, as early as 1996. The first letter, from the director of the hosting
company Xterracom. states that <afm.com> . . . has been hosted at Xterra
since September of 1996." Letter from Ingo Gunther, Director, Xterracom
(April 24, 2001). It does not, however, provide any evidence of the
content of or activity on the site, or any plans with respect to future use
of <afm.com>.

The second letter asserts: "A few years ago Andy asked me for advice about
moving classifieds online in a form normally found on so called flea markets.
He called it <afm.com> (American Flea Market). He has been working on
it since then and I saw quite a few prototypes of it." Letter from Axel
Roselius (May 12, 2001). Similarly, the third letter writer says that
he "met with Andy a few times regarding a his [sic] projects including
his <afm.com> classifieds/auctions search project." Letter from Thomas
Leavitt (May 8, 2001). See also Letter from Michael B. Crawford, President,
Goingware, Inc., (April 26, 2001), ("I have consulted with Andy
Hasse and Hasse, Inc., since 1995 on a number of projects, which include
<afm.com>. . . . Regarding <afm.com>, the auctions/classifieds site,
I have provided occasional programming and conceptual input to that project
since early 1997."); Letter from John DeChello, Owner, John DeChello
Internet Consulting (May 8, 2001), ("I consulted with Andy on <afm.com>
in 1997 and 1998, and discussed the project with him from time to time
through mid-2000."). Although these letters suggest that Mr. Hasse may
have discussed a possible "American Flea Market" with other parties,
Respondentís failure to submit documentary evidence of the alleged prototypes
or further details about the nature of the discussions raises questions about
the evidentiary value of these assertions.

Whether these submissions are sufficient to prove "demonstrable preparations"
is a close question. See, e.g., World Wrestling Fedín Entmít, Inc., v. Ringside
Collectibles, WIPO Case No. D2000-1306
(January 24, 2001), (stated intention to start an auction site, without
more, is insufficient to show demonstrable preparations; Chanel, Inc., v.
Estco Tech. Group, WIPO Case No. D2000-0413
(September 18, 2000), (submission of a detailed business plan constitutes evidence
of a bona fide interest). The submissions of the parties on this second element
of the claim present evidentiary issues with respect to documentation and witness
testimony perhaps better resolved in an arbitration or court proceeding designed
for broader exploration of issues through discovery and cross-examination than
in the streamlined UDRP procedural framework. Lopez v. Rock City, NAF
File No. FA0094907 (June 2, 2000). In any event, because of the Panelís
ruling on the bad faith factor, discussed below, it is unnecessary in this case
for the Panel to render a decision on the second factor of the claim.

C. Bad Faith

To prevail, the Complainant must prove bad faith. The Complainant has failed
to meet that burden.

The Complainant alleges that bad faith exists because the Respondent registered
the domain name in order to prevent the trademark owner, AFMA, from reflecting
its mark in a corresponding domain name, and because the Respondent engaged
in a pattern of such cybersquatting conduct. Policy ∂ 4(b)(ii).

To make out a case of bad faith under this paragraph of the Policy, the Complainant
must prove two elements: (1) that the Respondent registered the domain name
to prevent a trademark owner from registering it; and (2) that the Respondent
has engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting.

The Respondent has submitted evidence that there are many other users of a
mark consisting of the letters "AFM." The existence of multiple users
of an AFM mark tends to undermine the Complainantís assertion that Respondent
registered <afm.com> with the intent to deprive the Complainant from reflecting
its mark in a domain name. Goldline Intíl, Inc., v. Gold Line, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1151 (January 4, 2001). AFM may be a registered mark,
but the Complainant has not submitted evidence that the mark is so famous (like
other abbreviation marks such as TWA, NFL, and IBM) that the Respondent likely
registered the name in bad faith to specifically target the Complainant. Moreover,
there is no evidence whatsoever of bad faith use, and the Policy expressly requires
a showing of both. e-duction, Inc., v. Zuccarini, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1369 (February 2, 2001).

Nor is the Complainantís assertion that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern
of cybersquatting compelling. Although some of the domain names registered to
the Respondent and its affiliates raise questions, the evidence is not sufficient
to prove that the registration of <afm.com> was part of a pattern of registering
domain names to prevent trademark owners from reflecting their own marks in
a domain name. Moreover, wading through the voluminous record, it appears that
the Respondent registered some of these domain names on behalf of clients, some
are sufficiently generic so as not to infringe on trademarks, see Micron
Techs., Inc., v. Null Intíl Research Ctr., WIPO
Case No. D2001-0608 (June 20, 2001), and those relating to the San Francisco
mayorial election may merit First Amendment protection.

The Complainantís additional allegations that the Respondent failed to return
its phone calls or to provide information to the Complainant do not demonstrate
bad faith. There is no obligation that a party respond to letters or otherwise
provide information to a challenger in advance of a lawsuit (although doing
so is often a good way to persuade a putative challenger of the existence of
a legitimate interest or the absence of bad faith, and would strengthen a claim
of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as it would put the Complainant on notice as
to the weakness of its allegations. SeeGoldline, supra).

The Panel finds that the weight of the evidence in the record does not support
a finding of bad faith in this case.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

The Panel rejects the Respondentís request for a finding of Reverse Domain
Name Hijacking. Such a finding requires a showing of bad faith on the part of
the Complainant. Church in Houston v. Moran, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0683 (August 2, 2001). Although Respondent has prevailed
on the merits, it has not made the requisite showing of bad faith. First, the
<afm.com> domain name incorporates the AFM mark. Second, at the time the
dispute was initiated, the <afm.com> website displayed only random text
and when the Complaint was filed, the site offered only a short list of hyperlinks.
Third, the Respondent has a history of registering multiple domain names, some
containing trademarks. Fourth, it failed to respond to the Complainantís letters,
which would have put Complainant on notice of Respondentís defenses. Together,
these factors, all of which were cited by (and thus considered by) the Complainant,
tend to negate an inference that the Complainant brought this Complaint in bad
faith. The Panel thus finds that the Complaint was neither unreasonable nor
made in bad faith.

9. Decision

The Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the Respondent registered and
used <afm.com> in bad faith. The Panel therefore denies the Complainantís
request to transfer the domain name from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Similarly, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate that the Complaint was brought
in bad faith. Accordingly, the Respondentís request for a finding of Reverse
Domain Name Hijacking is also denied.

David Bernstein
Presiding Panelist

Michael Froomkin
Panelist

Dana Haviland
Panelist

Dated: August 23, 2001

Footnotes:

1. After receipt of the Centerís list of
five proposed panelists for the position of presiding panelist, the Case Manager
erroneously appointed Mr. Bernstein as Presiding Panelist before the parties
had an opportunity to rank their preferences from the Centerís list. Once this
administrative error was brought to the Panelís attention, the Panel, on July
24, 2001, suspended its work on this case and issued an Order directing the
Case Manager to distribute to the parties the Centerís original list of five
proposed Presiding Panelists. In response, both parties expressly indicated
that they preferred that Mr. Bernstein continue as Presiding Panelist in this
case.

2. Two of the Panelists, representing a majority
of the Panel, further note that recusal of the Provider is not warranted because
only the Panel has the authority to issue a decision and ruling. Thus, even
if the Provider had a bias in favor of a party Ė and the Respondentís evidence
that AFMA is active in WIPO does not rise to that level Ė that would be insufficient
to justify recusal given that the Providerís responsibilities are solely administrative,
and that it is the Panel, not the Provider, that renders a decision on a complaint.

The Panel recognizes that, under the Rules, the Provider has substantial discretion
in the appointment of Panelists. That discretion is tempered in two ways. First,
if a party believes the Provider has acted upon any bias to appoint a panelist
who is not impartial, the party can move for the panelistís recusal or removal.
Britannia Bldg. Socíy, supra. The Respondent here has made no
such allegations. Second, in cases involving three-member panels, the party
can have substantial influence on the composition of the panel: it can offer
three nominees for one of the panel positions and can articulate its preferences
with respect to which of five proposed panelists should serve as presiding panelist.
Rule 6(e). Here, one of the Respondentís nominees was selected for the Panel,
and the Respondent expressly agreed to the selection of Mr. Bernstein as the
Presiding Panelist.

3. The Supplemental Rules limit the portion
of the Complaint describing the grounds on which the Complaint rests to 5,000
words. Supp. Rule 10(a). The Complaint in this case complies with that requirement
(the section is just under 4,900 words). To support the allegations of the Complaint,
the Complainant has submitted 62 exhibits representing about three inches of
documentary evidence. There is no restriction in the Rules or Supplemental Rules
on the quantity of documentary evidence that can be submitted, although the
Panel notes that the unusually large volume of material in this case made it
impossible for the Panel to review the file within the 14 days provided by the
Rules for rendering a decision. Rule 15(b). The Supplemental Rules also limit
the portion of the Response responding to the statements and allegations in
the Complaint to 5,000 words. Supp. Rule 10(b). Notwithstanding the Respondentís
complaint about the length of the Complainantís Complaint, it is the Respondent
who has exceeded that limit; the section of the Response responding to the allegations
runs over 6,000 words.

When a Complaint fails to comply with the Rules, the Rules provide a mechanism
for rejecting the Complaint and allowing Complainant five days to cure the deficiencies.
Rule 4(b). The Rules contain no similar provisions for treatment of Responses
that fail to follow the Rules. In these circumstances, it is up to the Panel
to determine whether to accept the Response, and how to treat the Responseís
deficiencies. Here, in light of the Complainantís voluminous submission, the
Panel has decided to accept the Response, but future parties should be aware
that panels may strike or disregard submissions that exceed the Supplemental
Rulesí word limits or otherwise violate the Rules. Cf. Talk City, Inc., v.
Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009
(February 29, 2000), (disregarding submission that lacked certification required
by Rule 5(b)(viii)).